CC BY
0V. A. Medintsev On the integration accounts in psychology
Автор
Annotation. There are various assessments of the current state of psychological knowledge and ideas about promising directions for its development. One of the possible perspectives for the integration of psychological knowledge and some methodological problems associated with its implementation are considered. The option of integrating psychological knowledge can be implemented by developing a theoretical model describing the universalization of ways of presenting it and synthesizing the results obtained within the framework of the natural science and humanities paradigms. When developing integrative models, it is advisable to use various strategies of formalized descriptions; three such strategies are discussed in the article.
Keywords: psychological knowledge, strategy, paradigm, universalization, formalized descriptions
Citation : Medintsev V.A. On the integration accounts in psychology. Theoretical research in psychology: monographic series.. Volume 21. 2024. P. 42-48. doi: 10.24412/2616-6860-2024-2-42-48
Ideas, methods and problems of developing possible prospects for the development of psychological science are associated with trends of a general scientific nature, despite the fact that their assessments vary significantly in the works of specialists in various scientific fields and disciplines. At the same time, the methodological problems of psychological research are closely connected with the general scientific picture of the world , and, as noted by Yu.P. Zin-chenko, consideration of the categorical matrix of the methodological foundations of psychological knowledge contributes to its clarification and development (Zin-chenko, 2011). Psychologists do not remain aloof from discussions on the prospects for the development of science, in particular domestic science. An example is the one proposed by Yu.A. Yurevich's version of strategies for its development, which provide for the development of a social order for domestic science, the creation of conditions for its implementation and the rationalization of mass consciousness (Yurevich, 2010).
Characteristic features of the current state of scientific, in particular psychological, knowledge are the rapid increase in its volume and the deepening of its sectoral and disciplinary differentiation. This trend is largely due to the growing public need for the most detailed and adequate scientific representations of psychological descriptions of the
functioning of human communities and the individual as a participant in various real, virtual and ideal (predicted) cultural communities. In such conditions, the historical fragmentation of psychological knowledge becomes an obstacle to its effective use in all industrial and disciplinary segments. Since forecasting and determining prospects is an integral part of science, the search for optimal opportunities to ensure the integration of psychological knowledge seems to be an urgent task (Ball, 2010; Ball, Medintsev, 2016; Me-dintsev, 2018).
The scientific difficulties of integration in modern psychology are associated with the complexity of the psychological reality being studied and with the epistemological features of humanitarian knowledge. The latter are manifested in the multivariate nature of knowledge of any subject of psychological research, in the significant role of the subjective preferences and attitudes of the researcher, in the need to take into account the subjective qualities of the subjects, in the difficulties of coordinating the results obtained using various research methods. As a result of these features (as well as global cultural processes), modern psychological science is built from parts that are difficult to reconcile.
For the progress of psychological science, including the success of its diverse practical applications, it is necessary
to overcome the difficulties highlighted above and the inconsistency of psychological knowledge, creating conditions for its integration in the future. In addition, one cannot ignore the traditionally stable trends in psychological science, which, in particular, are characterized in the following statement: "With great difficulty, psychology overcomes the temptation to once again build its building on the sand of its own reasoning, without relying on the foundation of more general disciplines "(Ryzhov, 2010; p. 39). As in any creative scientific work, when creating options for the possible integration of psychological knowledge, it is necessary to use the experience of integrative processes in other subsystems of culture, in particular examples of successful integration of knowledge in the natural sciences and humanities. Since psychological theories differ not only in their subjects, initial principles, depth of description of mental reality, but also in the features of representations of their contents, the development of integrative models of various types seems promising: from metaphorical models to the most formalized ones. One of the options for developing theoretical models for the integration of psychological knowledge may be a model describing the following two components:
a) universalization of methods of their presentation, including using formalized descriptions;
b) synthesis of results obtained within the framework of natural science and humanities paradigms.
The universalization of forms of representing human knowledge in one form or another occurs along with the development of science and technology. In recent decades, this trend can be traced, for example, in the requirements for the design of scientific publications (abstracts, keywords, mandatory sections, requirements for the design of links, including to web resources). At the same time, the universalization in question in the field of human studies is fraught with difficulties, among which the following seem to be the most relevant (Ball, Medintsev, 2016):
A) contradictions associated with ethnocultural, economic, political, ideological, socio-psychological tensions, disunity between scientific disciplines, between rival scientific schools, between long-term and short-term, academic and pragmatic priorities;
b) historically developed different visions of the position and status of their disciplines in the system of science (including significantly different opinions about the extent to which the concept of a scientific paradigm is applicable in psychology, according to T. Kuhn);
c) difficulties in formalizing the content of human science knowledge.
A lot has been written about the difficulties of groups "a" and "b"; much less attention is paid to the difficulties of group "c". The latter are due, first of all, to the lack of a clear correspondence between the terms used and the content put into them. However, such correspondence was and remains an important requirement for scientific knowledge. In scientific, especially humanitarian, texts, the key role is played by words that are carriers of unified meanings (for example, the word " force " when it denotes a component in the formulation of a physical law). In contrast, in artistic, journalistic, and propaganda texts, the same words (at least " strength " as an ordinary noun) are carriers of vague meanings and, to a large extent, emotional carriers of meanings .
Strict requirements for the means of scientific activity are ideals rather than norms that must be unconditionally fulfilled. The possible degree of approximation to such ideals depends, firstly, on the nature of the objects under study and, secondly, on the so-called . n . research program, or paradigm. Based on these criteria, certain types of sciences are distinguished. For example, V.P. Filatov (Humanitarian Science, 2007) distinguishes the following types of sciences: 1) "exact" natural sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.); 2) descriptive and classification natural sciences (for example, Earth sciences); 3) social sciences (economics, sociology); 4) humanities (historical science, cultural studies, etc.). Even
closer, in comparison with the "exact" natural sciences, mathematics and mathematical logic, which are not included in this classification, are approaching the above-mentioned ideals - sciences that are not oriented towards knowledge of the world, but towards the creation and study of formal models that could become means of such knowledge. .
As we move from the "exact" sciences (mathematical and natural), through intermediate types, to the humanities and philosophy, the norms of rational knowledge become less strict; they are mitigated for the sake of more complete coverage of the properties of very complex objects under study, including properties that cannot be formalized. Relaxation of requirements also applies to the linguistic means of science. When words of national languages are used as psychological terms, the semantic properties of these words change. Thus, the content of concepts in the humanitarian sphere turns out to be dependent on the characteristics of national languages, and therefore national cultures; The correspondences of terms recorded in dictionaries are often only approximate, and high-quality translation of a scientific and humanitarian text (as well as fiction) into another language is a complex scientific and creative activity.
When developing strategies for universalizing the representation of knowledge in the field of human studies , it makes sense to rely on the results of research in the field of the language of science, taking into account the characteristics inherent in the disciplines that are, as defined by A.A. Krushanov , in the " pre-standard situation ", which is typical for modern human studies . In this case, it is necessary to take into account:
- heterogeneity human science knowledge, in particular in terms of such parameters as the degree of clarity of concepts and the certainty of their relationship with the terms denoting them.
- the importance of ensuring the unity of knowledge (both psychological, human studies , and scientific knowledge in general).
In connection with the second position, it is worth mentioning the position of D.A. Leontiev, who denies the alter-nativeness of humanitarian and natural science approaches to human psychology (Leontiev, 2011).
The above does not exclude the relevance of work on streamlining (highly desirable - within the framework of global projects) the conceptual and terminological apparatus of human studies . Of course, it is easier to carry out
such work in relation to its sections that are oriented towards the natural scientific tradition - here examples of successful international systematizations in the natural sciences (chemical nomenclature, biological systematics, etc.) directly act as a methodological and methodological guide. At the same time, the importance of the ordering under consideration (again, on a global scale) is also obvious in the humanities and humanities disciplines (as well as such as psychology, where they focus on both the natural science and humanitarian traditions). Realizing the difficulties outlined above on this path, one must see in them not an argument in favor of preserving the existing situation, close to chaos, but a challenge to which adequate answers must and can be found in the modern civilizational situation. The principal way to find them is seen in the construction of metasystems , visually represented as lattices, the cells of which contain concepts specific to certain subdisciplines, scientific schools, national linguistic traditions, etc.
As noted above, when developing universal ways of representing psychological knowledge, their formalized descriptions can be useful. In human science , considerable experience has already been accumulated in the development and use of such descriptions; it seems appropriate to distinguish between two main strategies in them (see also Ball, Medintsev, 2016).
The first strategy may include formalized descriptions, in which the researcher selects suitable mathematical models for the patterns described in "humanitarian" language. The latter can belong to any of three groups of theoretical models, namely: deterministic, stochastic, synergetic. An example of the development of formalized descriptions within the framework of this strategy is the well-known and discussed works of V. Lefebvre ( Lefebvre , 1991, etc.).
The second strategy includes developments in which researchers , based on models used in physics, biology and other natural sciences, build formalized descriptions in various branches of human science . This methodology has developed, in particular, entropy analysis in psychology (Ryzhov, 2010, etc.) and the interpretation of physical the-
The issue of prospects for the development of psychology is always relevant and debatable . The paradigmatic status of psychological science - pre-paradigmatic , multi-paradigmatic or extra-paradigmatic (Yurevich, 2007) - will apparently remain uncertain for a long time. In this publication (and in a number of previous ones) an option is outlined for constructing a theoretical toolkit for the integration of psychological knowledge by: a) universalizing the methods of their presentation, including using formalized descriptions; b) synthesis of results obtained within the framework of natural science and humanities paradigms.
ories as competing models of representing the world in different types of consciousness (Petrenko, Suprun, 2014, etc.).
But more universal methods of formalized descriptions are also possible. In this regard, it makes sense to consider a third strategy , within the framework of which to explore the possibilities of application in human science most general mathematical models. This strategy was used, in particular, in the development of a set-theoretic method for describing processes (Ball, Medintsev, 2016, etc.), in which the most general mathematical tool (set theory) is applied to the most general humanitarian concept of "culture", while culture and its components (modes) are considered as algebraic structures.
Both paths are fraught with difficulties - both methodological and sociocultural - however, in these difficulties it makes sense to see not so much an argument in favor of preserving the existing, close to chaos, situation, but rather a challenge to which in the modern civilizational situation should and can be adequate answers have been found. The principal way to find them is seen in the construction of metasystems of psychological knowledge, visually represented as lattices, the cells of which contain concepts specific to certain subdisciplines, scientific schools, national linguistic traditions, etc.
References
Балл Г.А. Рациогуманистическая установка в методологии инновационного развития / Россия: тенденции и перспективы развития. Ежегодник: Вып. 5. Ч. II. М.: ИНИОН РАН, 2010. С. 273-281.
Балл Г.А., Мединцев В.А. Теоретико-множественный метод описания процессов и его применение в психологии: монография. К.: Педагопчна думка, 2016. 88 с.
Балл Г. А., Мединцев В. А. Формализованное описание процессов как теоретический ресурс изучения развития. Мир психологии. 2016. № 1. С. 53-66.
Мединцев В.А. Вопросы интеграции психологического знания в контексте системного описания культуры // Системная психология и социология. 2018. № 4 (28). С. 14-25.
Humanities as a subject of philosophical and methodological analysis (materials of the "round table") // Questions of Philosophy. 2007. No. 6. P. 57-82.
Zinchenko Yu.P. Methodological problems of fundamental and applied psychological research // National psychological journal. No. 1(5). 2011. pp. 42-49.
Leontyev D.A. New guidelines for understanding personality in psychology: from the necessary to the possible // Questions of psychology. 2011. No. 1. P. 3-27.
Lefevre V.A. Formula of man: Contours of fundamental psychology / V.A. Lefebvre / Trans. from English M.: Progress, 1991.
Petrenko V.F., Suprun A.P. The relationship between quantum physics and the psychology of consciousness / V.F. Petrenko, A.P. Suprun // Psychological Journal. 2014. T. 35. No. 6. P. 69-86.
Ryzhov B.N. Systemic foundations of psychology / B.N. Ryzhov // System psychology and sociology. 2010. T. 1. No. 1. P. 5-42.
Yurevich A.V. Paradigm debates // Methodology and history of psychology. 2007. Volume 2. Issue 3. pp. 3-17.
Yurevich A.V. Strategies for the development of Russian science // Sociology of science and technology. 2010. Volume 1. No. 1. P. 52-66.
